Can a Social Media Ban for Under-16s Actually Protect Kids?

With Australia’s proposed social media ban for users under sixteen rapidly approaching, the national conversation has intensified regarding its potential effectiveness in safeguarding adolescents. This policy, often described as a “social media pause,” originated from eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant and enjoys substantial backing from parents nationwide. The primary objective is to protect young teenagers from severe online dangers including cyberbullying, predatory contact, sextortion scams, and other potentially life-threatening risks until they reach sixteen years of age. Initially, the restriction will apply to major platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Meta services, WhatsApp, X, and YouTube, though teenagers will retain unrestricted access to the broader internet outside these specific sites.

Critics frequently argue that tech-savvy Australian teens will effortlessly bypass the restriction using Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), and undoubtedly some will succeed. However, technology companies have considerable experience managing VPN usage, as seen with streaming services like Netflix combating subscribers who exploit regional pricing differences. These platforms have developed sophisticated methods to detect and limit such circumvention, suggesting that bypassing the ban may not be as straightforward as some assume.

The notion that raising the access age constitutes a violation of free speech or represents government overreach seems misguided when examined closely. Society readily accepts age restrictions for activities like purchasing alcohol or obtaining a driver’s license based on safety and developmental considerations. This approach aligns with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which explicitly calls for protecting children from harmful information and materials. The convention obligates governments to shield young people from violence, abuse, and maltreatment, providing a solid ethical foundation for the policy.

Technical implementation presented challenges during age verification trials, with some proposals leaning toward complex biometric solutions. Simpler alternatives exist, such as leveraging the Commonwealth’s digital ID system, which can confirm age while preserving user privacy by avoiding unnecessary disclosure of personal information to third parties.

Will this initiative completely prevent teenagers from accessing social media? Certainly not entirely, determined teens will find ways around the barriers, though they may encounter additional obstacles like platform profiling systems. The broader success, however, lies in the growing global acknowledgment that technology companies must implement protective measures for younger users. Platforms that fail to do so increasingly face legal repercussions, as demonstrated by Roblox, which is confronting lawsuits alleging inadequate protection of children on its platform.

Roblox’s response illustrates this shifting landscape. The popular gaming platform is implementing multiple verification methods, including facial age estimation, official ID verification, and parental consent processes. Their new systems will also restrict communication between adults and minors who lack real-world connections. Other platforms are adopting similar age restrictions worldwide, with Denmark and New Zealand pursuing comparable approaches to Australia, while the United Kingdom mandates age screening requirements. This international trend indicates that age verification is becoming an established safety practice rather than an extreme measure.

Commissioner Inman Grant has earned respect as a regulator through decisive actions, particularly in combating deepfake pornography featuring Australian women. Multiple international surveys reveal that significant numbers of women fear being targeted by deepfake technology and subsequent extortion attempts. Her office recently secured a $350,000 federal court penalty against a man who created non-consensual deepfake imagery, demonstrating the serious consequences for such violations. The Commissioner’s engaged approach to public communication and the development of comprehensive online safety codes has generated substantial support for her broader mission.

A significant concern remains the absence of a complementary educational curriculum that would help teenagers understand online risks, appropriate response strategies, critical thinking skills for identifying misinformation, and the rationale behind the age restriction. Ideally, young people would recognize the protective intent behind the policy rather than viewing circumvention as an empty victory. While formal curriculum integration hasn’t yet materialized, productive discussions have occurred with educational authorities about developing comprehensive multimedia courses. The eSafety Commissioner’s website already offers valuable resources for parents and teens, though more extensive educational components would strengthen the initiative’s overall impact.

The question of digital sovereignty also merits consideration. Australia currently relies heavily on foreign-developed platforms that often prioritize engagement over information accuracy and user safety. The success of Martin Dougiamas, creator of the Moodle learning management system used by two-thirds of global universities, demonstrates that Australia possesses the capability to develop its own digital platforms. While Dougiamas personally opposes the social media ban, he strongly advocates for domestic platform development as a strategic response. His achievement proves that Australian innovation can compete on the world stage, suggesting the nation has the necessary skills, knowledge, and passion to create safer digital environments for its citizens.

(Source: ITWire Australia)